I didn't dodge anything and already acknowledged that the blame is not on one single side but burdened by all sides, even Ukrainians. A conflict can have more than 1 root cause, so you trying to focus on one single thing being the root of all roots is akin to thinking in two dimensions about 3 dimension problems. Russia thinks about and is responding to what's happening on it's borders meanwhile US continues its policy of injecting it's interests across the globe, doesn't matter if it's Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan or Ukraine.

Absolutely there is more than one cause; Not one of them is not NATO expansion. I am not trying to focus on one. I am disagreeing with what you say is the primary cause.
Still waiting for the credible threat that NATO poses to Russia to be explained.
A democratic Ukraine on authoritarian Russia's doorstep? Now that's a threat to Putin that doesn't need explaining.

This was the question I think you avoided, it is a genuine question -
"So its not simply NATO expansion, its only NATO expansion in Ukraine. In your view, why is that?"

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on May 16 2023 10:23am

Pathetic

Well for one, it has something to do with the placement of intermediate ballistic missiles. Having nukes that can land on Russia in seconds launched from countries on Russia's doorsetp is a huge advantage as you can essentially destroy them before they can fire off theirs off on us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

But that's beside the point, the point is the expansion was a voiced concern. Just because you and others like you don't like the explanation and at every turn minimize it doesn't change that it's a concern. We deemed their missiles in Cuba a concern and acted but you don't want to offer the same fair courtesy and are nitpicking them citing this as a concern with missiles systems able to reach Moscow on their borders as nothing to worry about.

It's NATO expansion in general. Ukraine was the red line though, not sure what else you need answered here?

The missiles argument is completely debunked, for several reasons. I'm on mobile right now, but briefly:
Consider kaliningrad as an example why that argument is completely hypocritical.
Consider where NATO nukes have been placed before, or more Importantly where they haven't been placed.
There wasn't even NATO troops in Eastern European NATO countries until Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

You think Kiev joins and overnight nukes appear on the border?
Nonsense.

Your still not explaining why Ukraine is a special case and why it was a "voiced concern" and Finland is not. And linking that directly to US policy as you claim it is linked.
Also voiced concern is an absurd justification for what has transpired in Ukraine.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on May 16 2023 10:51am

Your English comprehension seems very limited as i'm answering your question and yet it's still failing to register. Eastern expansion towards Russia was and is a concern to them, this is something that has been a concern since the Soviet Union imploded, acknowledged in the west, and hence we have the "Not one inch" comment coming out of it. If it was a concern then that we acknowledged it, why is it all the sudden been scrubbed as a concern in modern day when they've been repeating it for 20+ years? All expansion was a concern but Ukraine was the red line. Hopefully, this registers, as i'm running out of ways to frame something so simple.

Bold is nonsense. There are NATO bases and troops in Poland, Romania, Czech, etc that precede 2014, no idea what you're talking about.

Being on a path to democracy and nonaligned is fine. Look at eg Kazakhstan which tries to juggle interests of China, Russia and US very carefully. Or eg Singapore which balances interests of its Muslim neighbours with those of US and China.

The article I posted goes quite well into concerns Russians had over the past decades that NATO “defensive” preemptive invasions in violation of international law have created a real threat that this will happen to Russia one day once US figures out how not to get nuked in return.

Finland / Sweden joining NATO is a setback (and to be honest a blunder on their part as they were never on the radar), but it is not seen as a catastrophe comparable to losing Crimea permanently.

US assessing potential damage of Patriot missile defense system following Russian attack near Kyiv

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-16-23/index.html

I would bet on massive copium over this info.

Explanation about the 100% interception: debris fell on one launch site.

It's possible for Patriot to hit hypersonic rocket, but impossible for a rocket to hit Patriot. Also you have to poison potato with Novichok rather than wait for a 70 yo mustachioed alcoholic to die to natural causes. And if you don’t have water in the tap, then the Russians drank it, paraphrasing the saying.